Lawlines Vol 10 Issue 1 - eOASIS - Rajah & Tann LLP

Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah & Tann LLP’s Bi-Annual Journal on articles of current interest, features, and legal developmentsIN THIS ISSUE:A Round-Up Of LatestDevelopments In TheFirst Half Of 2008Rajah & Tann LLP Hosts9 th Lunchtime SeminarSeriesTax, Private Wealth &Trusts PracticeCourt Of Appeal DeliversJudgment On The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeInsider Trading And TheVexed QuestionOf General AvailabilityCourts And Arbitration -A Question Of Balance?Recent Developments InSingapore LawDisclosure OfConfidential InformationBy ProfessionalIn The Pursuit Of ItsLegitimate InterestsPublic PrivatePartnership Projects– The Processa second arbitration to declare that the June 2000 restructuring scheme was valid and bindingon all BI holders, including Dexia. The second tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction ongrounds that were erroneous and inconsistent with the first tribunal’s findings. PTA contendedthat the second tribunal’s findings should be set aside on the ground of public policy as theywere illegal. Although the Court of Appeal dismissed PTA’s appeal on the ground there hadbeen no ‘award’ since the second tribunal did not decide the substance of the claim, the viewsof the Court on public policy merit attention. The Court first accepted that as the legislativepolicy under the IAA is to minimise curial intervention in international arbitrations, errors offact and law made in an arbitral decision are final and binding on the parties except in thesituations prescribed under section 24 of the IAA. The IAA will be internally inconsistent ifthe public policy provision is construed to enlarge the scope of curial intervention to set asideerrors of law or fact that are not outside the scope of the arbitration. As such, errors of lawor fact per se do not engage the public policy of Singapore when they cannot be set aside forthe reasons stated in the IAA.The above case was followed in VV v VW [2008] SGHC 11 (‘VV’) where the question was whetherthe courts should, in the interest of public policy, act where costs awarded by the arbitrator areallegedly excessive. Here, costs of S$2.8 million had been awarded in a case where the claim wasonly for S$927,000. The plaintiffs, who had failed in their claim, contended, inter alia, that thecost awarded in this case was in conflict with public policy in that it offends against the principle ofproportionality. As far as public policy and proportionality were concerned, the trial judge held thatthere is no public interest involved in the legal costs of parties in one-off and private litigation and itis not part of the public policy of Singapore to ensure that costs incurred by parties to arbitration areassessed on the basis of any particular principle. The parties to the arbitration had contracted forOpen Source In ITContracts51 /77